Below are a series of videos created by Charlie Veitch and Danny Shine, featuring their friends and other like-minded individuals. Their message is quite profound and it is a satirical attack on the police state, consumerism, media and corporate property. Alongside these satirical attacks, they highlight the key fundamental difference which in which police and any civil servant or person who wears a uniform, views themselves as better than other members of public - even when this uniform gives no real authority to the wearer.

These videos are over 2 years old now but they are still extremely relevent to the current affairs in the United Kingdom. I hope some parallels can be drawn to the USA and hope to get some discussion around this.

So, here are the first couple videos:



There are about 12 in total. Watch as many as you like, just grasp the concept and then contribute to the discussion. They are entertaining. I won't embed them all here for the sake of neatness in the OP - just go search youtube 'everything is ok'.

So, the discussion? Is everything okay?

You can't hold a sign here either unless you have a permit. Big deal. Follow the rules. I don't take anyone seriously if they don't follow basic guidelines like this.

Agreed; I skimmed through the videos, all I saw were two morons trying to provoke a police reaction just so they could film it. Nothing 'profound' about it. If I saw someone yelling with one of those... microphones... I'd want them locked up.

We have had rules about that kind of thing in this country for hundreds of years. They've always been there, it's just that in recent years (with the spectre of terrorism) the government and law enforcement have used them more to keep a leash on people. I believe the police were threatening to arrest the guy for a breach of the peace, which is a common law power dating back a long long way.

Now breaching the peace is not a criminal offence. Basically the police would have just arrested him and then released him as he wasn't committing a crime. Technically, it doesn't have to be a police officer that arrests someone for a breach of the peace either. I could have gone up to him and tried to arrest him if I'd wanted to, but he'd have just laughed at me and so he should.

The point that the guy was trying to make, though he was basically just being a jackass, annoying tourists - was that governments use vague threats to public safety to restrict the freedom of people in general. In this case it was Islamist terrorism - in the late 19th century it was the fear of the anarchist bomb thrower. In the 1970s and 80s it was the IRA. Our freedom is being eroded even if we feel "free".

I don't see what freedoms are being restricted. The freedom to annoy everyone around you?

This guy seems to have the right idea, but he is going about it wrong. I'm not aware of what private property he was on, I would have thought that would be considered trespassing and not disturbing the peace in the case of private property. I'm not familiar with British law, but I would hope that you have some freedom or right to "peaceably assemble". That seemed more of a commercial centre, and if they allow people to enter their "private property" at will without their permission, then it is no longer private property. I would argue that it has become a local forum, and that you have the right to express your beliefs and opinions so long as you do it in a peaceable way. I would further argue that just as the officer didn't want to be filmed, you should have the right to deny consent to be filmed by the CCTV as it is with the sole intent of filming public areas where people are free to go about their business, there is no intent to protect private interest with the CCTV cameras, which should make them unlawful.

Under British law you grant people implied right of access to your property up to the "front door", in order to allow them to conduct their legitimate business (e.g. the postman). I'm not sure how it translates into large, ostensibly "public" spaces which are owned by private companies (like open air commercial centres or car parks), but if you declare that you withdraw the implied right of access to specific persons then they are committing civil trespass by being on the land.

Still, that wasn't what the police were threatening him for. I think it was public nuisance.

Exactly. I don't see politely asking being a moronic nuisance to leave as taking away any rights. In fact, I think he should've been promptly arrested and put into jail for holding an unsanctioned protest and (as you said) being a public nuisance.

In my opinion they have too much spare time, and were being jackasses. Then, they were detained for some legitimate reason and they're pissed off, and are abusing their rights by annoying guards outside the embassy. Just because you have rights doesn't mean you should abuse them just to be a jackass. This sort of thing is the reason why I like TeamLiquid so much; they ban assholes they come along acting like jackasses because they feel they have a right to act however they want. TL acts with a sort of elitist meritocracy, which I believe is the best way to go about things on the internet. Although, outside of the embassy isn't the internet, they were still being jackasses anyways.

Why do protests need government approval? Isn't that kinda defeating the point, if it's the government you're protesting?

Because that kind of logic can be extended forever and is invalid. "In protest of the government, let's play the banjo poorly and annoy everyone within a hundred meters!" "In protest of the government, let's drive a hundred cars onto the railways and shut down Amtrack!" "In protest of the government, let's start suicide bombing!". "In protest of the government" is not a cover-all excuse.

If there is an opportunity for sanctioned protests, as there is, then there's no excuse for unsanctioned ones. It's no better than pissing publicly on the street.